Two black men arrested at Philly Starbucks for trespassing

[SheWolf]

Just your luck, Ive run outta duct tape and my heads about to explode.

Talk about MIA, did you even read the OP? The thread is purely about the arrest made either being about racism or not. To tiptoe around it all the while virtue signalling to those of the herd mentaliy here, bulls who ve found this pasture to give in plentitude of their copious fertilizer...

Then when called on it, trying to weasle out is...typical here I guess. I only mentioned race to you in mentioning race having not a thing to do with just how slack and lacking in mental effort the response posts have been and to which was my effort wasted... except to those actually cognitively engaged on site.

But I wish you good luck, but better to improve ones skills, in your future debates.

IDK what you're talking about. What's virtue signaling? All I said is that you should read more articles and do a little more research, because the OP doesn't do a good job of laying out the entire situation. It doesn't seem like these guys should have been arrested or treated in the manner they were. They were there for a legitimate meeting. Did the manager not care about that? Then they were held for 8 hours, and later released because of lack of evidence.

I think there is more information to come out about this.

 

[notquiteright]

If you owned a Starbucks and realized that all of these people weren't paying for anything but just meeting friends and doing business, wouldn't you want to enact a policy to get people to make purchases if they're going to use your facilities?

If you had ever been in a Starbucks you'd know the answer to that is no. They make enough profit on their overpriced coffees, pastries and foo-foo sandwiches to not worry too much about who is drinking or not. Many a college kid has sat around Starbucks using the WiFi for hours. Perhaps you'd do better running a donut cart on a street corner... eace

 

[SheWolf]

I think a complete picture is helpful. If we're playing fair, we also doubt the employees, since at this point the CEO has said that calling the police was the wrong thing to do. So the employees are going to want to cover their asses.



Your link also indicates that this does not and did not happen to other loiterers:

Onlookers in the background are incredulous.

"What did they do?" one man asks. "They didn't do anything," a woman responds. "I saw the entire thing."

@Starbucks The police were called because these men hadn’t ordered anything. They were waiting for a friend to show up, who did as they were taken out in handcuffs for doing nothing. All the other white ppl are wondering why it’s never happened to us when we do the same thing. pic.twitter.com/0U4Pzs55Ci
— Melissa DePino (@missydepino) April 12, 2018




Seems rather messed up regardless of what might objectively seem reasonable if the a bunch of people were hanging out without buying anything, but only two of them were asked to leave. Then, had the cops called.





Sounds like these events played out like a DP thread....

TBH, i have gone to many establishments and used the bathroom and free internet while waiting to meet others for lunch. Is it that odd of a thing to do? Am I some kind of rare person for doing this???

 

[SheWolf]

Probably because when it happens to a white person, it doesn't make the news. No one cares.

Like me, most people are asked and they leave. Especially when the cops get there.

These two individuals didn't take it like most would have and wanted to make a scene and claim racism.

White conservatives have been in the news making noise for being treated unfairly, ironically at Starbucks too.

A group of Republicans turned the tables on a Charlotte Starbucks Saturday, after its staff was accused of mocking a customer for wearing a Donald Trump tee-shirt.

Starting at 2 p.m., more than 50 T-shirt wearing Trump backers staged a peaceful gathering at the Dilworth coffee house, filling chairs, tables and even the parking lot at one point.

The group told TV station Fox 46 the sit-in was a little tense at the beginning, when a throng of people filed through the door. But the mood lightened as more and more people ordered coffee using the names of different members of the Trump cabinet, including Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions.

Trump backers hold sit-in at Starbucks after staff mocks woman in Trump tee-shirt | Charlotte Observer

 

[Mr Person]

What's virtue signaling?

That's a good question. I don't know how long it has been a term, but it suddenly started appearing en masse around DP within the last week or three. Wonder what I'll find if I google "Fox virtue signalling"

 

[SheWolf]

They were not patrons. They did not buy anything.

Actually, they weren't patrons, that's why Starbucks asked them to leave. They wanted to use Starbucks as a restroom and meeting place rather than as paying customers, which is what a patron is.

Are you guys not reading about the event? They were there to meet somebody, so it's possible they would have paid or bought something once their friend showed up. You guys have no way of knowing otherwise, but saying they were definately not going to pay for anything including the third person they were waiting for is speculation. I agree, that they can't just use somebody's facilities for free either, but the way these people were treated while waiting for a meeting to get under way is over the line.

 

[JC Callender]

I have no idea. I deliberately avoided wading into those waters because I know what happens on DP. Suggest racism or even subconscious racial motivation, and everyone starts screaming about the race card; then the thread goes nowhere good. I don't know the past of any of the people involved in this story. I don't know if it's a complete report on what happened. Etc.


If the article is to be believed, then it seems like greater than 6 people were loitering without having bought anything, but only these two were asked to leave. Everyone was shocked when the police got there. I don't recall reading any reference to their having made a disturbance or some such.

So from my perspective, no matter what the motivation was, it was a bad call. Either you ask all non-paying customers to leave or you don't ask any of them to do so. Better yet, before asking them to leave, first ask if they intend to buy anything. Others here say the guys were just waiting for a third person. But you don't just say, either explicitly or via actions, "yeah, you two need to go. The rest are cool."



Granted, it's never a good idea to make a scene when cops are simply asking you to move - there's a tendency to get beaten up a bit and charged for disorderly conduct/resisting, though fortunately that didn't happen here. But it's still a ridiculous situation no matter who is what race.

I understand your point, and if there were several people there not purchasing at that time, they should've been asked to leave as well. The way I understood it, other patrons suggested they weren't asked to leave when they didn't purchase, but if they didn't do it the same day then I don't think it's as relevant. The head manager may have asked the employees to tell anyone not purchasing to leave but maybe this was the only employee willing to actually do it. I would assume many Starbucks employees would cringe at the thought of having to do that.

 

[SheWolf]

So? Buy the coffee while you wait. Their arguments would have been a lot stronger had they done that. I meet people all the time at Starbucks. I don't wait for them to get there to buy coffee. I buy it and nurse it while I wait. I mean, what happens if you finish it before they get there? *gasp* Buy another cup? Oh, the humanity.

I meet people at Paneara for meetings, I don't buy a meal before they show up because I think it's rude. I have never been given so much trouble as these men either, and I don't think having the cops called unless I order is something I should expect to happen. I don't think the way they were treated was reasonable.

 

[TheGoverness]

Are you guys not reading about the event? They were there to meet somebody, so it's possible they would have paid or bought something once their friend showed up. You guys have no way of knowing otherwise, but saying they were definately not going to pay for anything including the third person they were waiting for is speculation. I agree, that they can't just use somebody's facilities for free either, but the way these people were treated while waiting for a meeting to get under way is over the line.

I do not care about your speculation what they might've done. You said they were patrons. They did not buy anything, therefore they weren't patrons.

 

[JC Callender]

Are you guys not reading about the event? They were there to meet somebody, so it's possible they would have paid or bought something once their friend showed up. You guys have no way of knowing otherwise, but saying they were definately not going to pay for anything including the third person they were waiting for is speculation. I agree, that they can't just use somebody's facilities for free either, but the way these people were treated while waiting for a meeting to get under way is over the line.

I haven't read anywhere where the two men told the Starbucks employee that they planned on ordering something when their friend arrived, and I'm sure that would've been a pretty important thing to leave out of this story if it did occur. I don't understand why they wouldn't have gotten a coffee while waiting for their friend anyway. Even at a restaurant, people generally get something to drink while waiting for others to arrive.

 

[Mr Person]

I understand your point, and if there were several people there not purchasing, they should've been asked to leave as well. The way I understood it, other patrons suggested they weren't asked to leave when they didn't purchase, but if they didn't do it the same day then I don't think it's as relevant. The head manager may have asked the employees to tell anyone not purchasing to leave but maybe this was the only employee willing to actually do it. I would assume many Starbucks employees would cringe at the thought of having to do that.

Well, ok, but as to the dark blue, that NPR article doesn't seem to specify one way or the other. From the tone of that lady's tweet, it does sound like it's a pretty regular occurrence for people to sit for a while without ordering at that particular Starbucks. We don't really know the ins and outs, or at least, I don't right now.

 

[ludin]

It doesn't ruin a person's life to fire them.

lol whatever. Typical response from a person not losing their job.
Welcome to the new dark age folks and it begins with this mentality.

 

[Grand Mal]

Progressives be like....
View attachment 67231768

What the hell is that?
Damn but you make no sense sometimes.

 

[TheGoverness]

I haven't read anywhere where the two men told the Starbucks employee that they planned on ordering something when their friend arrived, and I'm sure that would've been a pretty important thing to leave out of this story if it did occur. I don't understand why they wouldn't have gotten a coffee while waiting for their friend anyway. Even at a restaurant, people generally get something to drink while waiting for others to arrive.

That probably would've been mentioned yes. The article does not give any indication that they were contemplating on buying something. Now if they had, that would be a different story.

 

[roguenuke]

A couple of odd things in the story:

1) They called 911 for this? Really?
2) The police didn't just tell the people to purchase something or leave? Went straight to arrest?

Something doesn't add up here. There's got to be more to the story.

The police showed up after the employee asked the men to leave twice, and they refused. Then the police asked the men to leave, politely, three times and they refused. That is when they were arrested. That is the problem here. If they felt that the Starbucks employee was wrong for asking them to leave, they should have simply left and brought it up to Starbucks. Instead, they went out of their way to ensure that this became a social media incident.

 

[SheWolf]

I do not care about your speculation what they might've done. You said they were patrons. They did not buy anything, therefore they weren't patrons.

Why should anybody consider your speculation over mine? They said they were there for a meeting, which was a fact. The manager could have exercised better judgement and at least waited until their meeting got underway before deciding to call the cops.

 

[enderpotato00]

What the hell is that?
Damn but you make no sense sometimes.

Its supposed to imitate what Liberals will react to this article. They'll probably scream that.

 

[roguenuke]

IDK what you're talking about. What's virtue signaling? All I said is that you should read more articles and do a little more research, because the OP doesn't do a good job of laying out the entire situation. It doesn't seem like these guys should have been arrested or treated in the manner they were. They were there for a legitimate meeting. Did the manager not care about that? Then they were held for 8 hours, and later released because of lack of evidence.

I think there is more information to come out about this.

They were released because the charge was trespassing and the Starbucks refused to press those charges. That is not lack of evidence. It is the "victim" (Starbucks) not pressing charges.

 

[TheGoverness]

Why should anybody consider your speculation over mine? They said they were there for a meeting, which was a fact. The manager could have exercised better judgement and at least waited until their meeting got underway before deciding to call the cops.

This is not "speculation". The article says as much. They didn't buy anything, therefore they were not patrons. The article also does not give any indication that they planned to buy anything.

 

[SheWolf]

I haven't read anywhere where the two men told the Starbucks employee that they planned on ordering something when their friend arrived, and I'm sure that would've been a pretty important thing to leave out of this story if it did occur. I don't understand why they wouldn't have gotten a coffee while waiting for their friend anyway. Even at a restaurant, people generally get something to drink while waiting for others to arrive.

I have already said in this thread that there is probably more information and details to come out. It's my understanding that they did try telling the manager they were there for a meeting. And I have already stated in this thread, that I have used similar establishments to settle in and wait on a meeting to start before ordering. I have never been treated like these men, and I don't think such treatment should be normal.

 

[SheWolf]

lol whatever. Typical response from a person not losing their job.
Welcome to the new dark age folks and it begins with this mentality.

You don't know me... lol

 

[SheWolf]

They were released because the charge was trespassing and the Starbucks refused to press those charges. That is not lack of evidence. It is the "victim" (Starbucks) not pressing charges.

I am just stating what I have read...

 

[Grand Mal]

Its supposed to imitate what Liberals will react to this article. They'll probably scream that.

Then why did you say 'progressives'?
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you. Lots of liberals have reacted to the article in this thread and the first incoherent knee-jerk screech came from you, a declared conservative. The first really, unarguably, abysmally stupid reaction came from you. The dumbest, most nonsensical post in the thread came from you.
Conservative, huh?

 

[enderpotato00]

Then why did you say 'progressives'?
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you. Lots of liberals have reacted to the article in this thread and the first incoherent knee-jerk screech came from you, a declared conservative. The first really, unarguably, abysmally stupid reaction came from you. The dumbest, most nonsensical post in the thread came from you.
Conservative, huh?

Progressivism is Liberalism today. What? I never said I was a conservative. I'm a right-libertarian. And like Liberals never have a knee-jerk reaction towards Trump supporters and call them "racist" or "misogynistic"?

 

[SheWolf]

This is not "speculation". The article says as much. They didn't buy anything, therefore they were not patrons. The article also does not give any indication that they planned to buy anything.

Again, this is all speculation... The manager got an attitude because they were trying to use amenities without paying while they were also there for a meeting. They could have very well been legitimate patrons willing to pay once the meeting was underway. We don't know.